UN seeks mediatory role in Central Asia

At the moment, there is no regional mechanism in Central Asia that could mediate in intra-regional disputes.

The statement
issued in New York earlier this week by the United Nations Security Council
regarding the imperatives for ‘preventive diplomacy’ in Central Asia will be of
interest against the complex backdrop of regional security.

The statement
was prima facie occasioned by the 5th anniversary of the establishment of the
UN Regional Centre for Preventive Diplomacy for Central Asia (UNRCCA) in
Ashgabat in 2007, but it followed a closed door briefing by the UN Secretary General’s
Special Representative Miroslav Jenca regarding regional developments over the
past six months.

The Security
Council statement is not a ‘binding’ document but its salience lies insofar as
it reflects the opinion of the five countries that are permanent members.

The statement
gives primacy to strengthening the region’s “capacity to overcome the
challenges to peace, stability”; to “fostering good neighbourly relations”
among Central Asian states; and “to respond to domestic and international
threats to peace.”

It singled out the
“impact of transboundary threats” facing the region and the “implications” of
management of water and energy resources on regional stability.

Special reference
was made to the need to “respond to domestic and transnational threats to
peace” in the region and the UNRCCA’s role as a facilitator of the role of
Central Asian states in the transition and normalisation of the Afghan
situation.

The statement
visualises the UNRCCA as a partner and a “tool” to “identify and develop
mutually acceptable solutions to existing and emerging problems” in Central
Asia.

Presumably,
Jenca’s closed-door briefing related to the disquieting templates that have
appeared in the recent months in the intra-Central Asian ties and their
deleterious impact on the efforts to stabilise Afghanistan.

Indeed, no one
expects an outbreak of war involving the Central Asian states. But there have
been skirmishes involving border guards, with loss of lives, on the
Uzbek-Kyrgyz border in the recent weeks and the virtual closing of the
Uzbek-Tajik border.

Plainly put,
Uzbekistan’s ties with both Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan have remained tense. The
tensions have been simmering and they hamper the efforts to strengthen regional
security even as Afghanistan tiptoes toward a withdrawal of the NATO from
combat role in Afghanistan by end-2014.

The point is,
there is no regional mechanism in Central Asia that could mediate in
intra-regional disputes. The Uzbekistan President Islam Karimov openly warned
about the threat of wars breaking out over water disputes. Uzbekistan has a
running feud with Tajikistan and has found common cause with Kazakhstan (which
has similar dispute with Kyrgyzstan).

An enduring
solution probably lies in the kind of regional integration that Russia has
proposed, but then, that is easier said than done. A recent commentary in
China’s state-owned Global Times identified the factors impeding
integration – the rising tide of nationalism, lack of political will to
cooperate, widening economic disparities and the “diplomatic strategy” of the
regional states to play off the big powers.

The Global Times
noted: “The “geopolitical situation in Central Asia is complex. The always
fierce competition between big powers has increased discrepancies within the
region. The rivalry between the US and Russia… has polarised Central Asian
countries. The EU, India, Japan, Turkey and Iran have also claimed their
interests in the region and stamped their influence on regional economy, security
and culture.

“Under the current
global situation, discrepancies between regional countries are increasing, as
is their wariness… All regional countries are strengthening their own national
sense and rejecting non-mainstream groups [read minorities]… A multipolar
system involving outside countries would be very attractive for Central Asia.”

What Global Times
prescribed seems to be taking shape. But the ground reality is that there are
miles to go before the UNRCCA can cut teeth in Central Asia. The big fish in
the Central Asian pond may resent being drawn into the UN net. Besides,
boundary disputes and unresolved national questions are linked to national
sovereignty and the UN has no record of solving such intractable issues as the
borders of Ferghana Valley or the glaciers in the Pamirs.

Even a role by the
UN to coordinate the Central Asian part of the Afghan transition and stabilisation
agenda cannot easily gain traction since Tashkent or Dushanbe may prefer to
deal directly with the Pentagon. All the same, the fact that the P5 could agree
on a statement that visualises the UN on the driving seat in the steppes is a
step forward in big-power politics.